Evaluating Financial Toxicity in Urologic Practice

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate financial toxicity in Urologic surgery using the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) as well as validate a single item measure of toxicity.MethodsA cross-sectional study of 182 patients undergoing oncologic and benign urologic procedures at a single academic medical center. Oncologic procedures included robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and radical cystectomy. Benign procedures included holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, intravesical chemodenervation, ureteroscopy laser lithotripsy, and ureteral stent exchange. Retrospective review, patient interviews, and the previously validated COST survey, as well as a novel single item measure of toxicity were used pre and post-op. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models compared COST scores by type of urologic procedure.ResultsEighty (44%) patients underwent oncologic procedures and 102 (56%) benign procedures. Benign patients were most likely to have lower income and be younger than oncologic patients, with a median age of 56.7 vs 64.9. One in 4 patients undergoing urologic procedures experienced moderate to severe financial toxicity, without a statistically significant difference between the benign and the oncology groups pre- or post-operatively. Single item measure strongly correlated with COST (r = −0.80) pre- and post-operative.ConclusionThe COST survey and a single-item financial toxicity measure are both valid tools that can be used to measure financial toxicity in urology. Further research is needed to elicit the exact cause of financial toxicity in the heterogenous urologic patient population. To evaluate financial toxicity in Urologic surgery using the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) as well as validate a single item measure of toxicity. A cross-sectional study of 182 patients undergoing oncologic and benign urologic procedures at a single academic medical center. Oncologic procedures included robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and radical cystectomy. Benign procedures included holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, intravesical chemodenervation, ureteroscopy laser lithotripsy, and ureteral stent exchange. Retrospective review, patient interviews, and the previously validated COST survey, as well as a novel single item measure of toxicity were used pre and post-op. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models compared COST scores by type of urologic procedure. Eighty (44%) patients underwent oncologic procedures and 102 (56%) benign procedures. Benign patients were most likely to have lower income and be younger than oncologic patients, with a median age of 56.7 vs 64.9. One in 4 patients undergoing urologic procedures experienced moderate to severe financial toxicity, without a statistically significant difference between the benign and the oncology groups pre- or post-operatively. Single item measure strongly correlated with COST (r = −0.80) pre- and post-operative. The COST survey and a single-item financial toxicity measure are both valid tools that can be used to measure financial toxicity in urology. Further research is needed to elicit the exact cause of financial toxicity in the heterogenous urologic patient population.